Minimum Safe Altitude

[John Sinclair]

FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
no person may operate an aircraft.................................
.....
(c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle or structure.

In light of the above regulation, would someone please
tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).

Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
JJ

[Don Johnstone]

At 14:30 11 February 2007, John Sinclair wrote:
>FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
>no person may operate an aircraft.................................
>>
>.....
>(c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>vehicle or structure.
>
>In light of the above regulation, would someone please
>tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
>finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
>person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).
>
>Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
>JJ

If you read the contents of previous discussions on
this subject you would know that I and some others
have questioned the legality of the practice. I have
always known that given the wording of the rules it
was an offence. Now we are in the situation where it
has been confirmed that the procedure is outside the
exemption and the Civil Aviation Authority will now
impose on all glider pilots a requirement which we
probably will not like. Such a blanket restriction
is not necessary for the majority of competition pilots
who fly a low finish perfectly safely having regard
to the presence of people and obstacles on the ground
and other factors. Because of a few irresponsible pilots,
who have complete disregard for sensible behaviour,
the majority will now have to suffer a restriction
which they did not need to be safe. If only we took
measures to weed out the idiots ourselves before they
cause trouble we would be far better off.
In answer too your last question, yes you are unless
you take active measures to curb the excesses of the
minority and prevent those who exhibit unacceptable
practices from doing so. In short, impose bans on those
who deliberately act in an irresponsible fashion.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 9:26 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
> no person may operate an aircraft.................................
> ....
> (c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle or structure.
>
> In light of the above regulation, would someone please
> tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
> finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
> person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).
>
> Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
> JJ

Most US contest organizers know to apply for an FAA waiver on this
issue. My understanding is that they are not that hard to obtain.

2c

[kirk.stant]

On Feb 11, 10:18 am, "
> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 9:26 am, John Sinclair
>
> > wrote:
> > FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
> > no person may operate an aircraft.................................
> > ....
> > (c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> > vehicle or structure.
>
> > In light of the above regulation, would someone please
> > tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
> > finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
> > person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).
>
> > Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
> > JJ

JJ

First, look up the FAA definitino of a "low pass" in the AIM. Then
find the definition of a landing pattern. You will find that it's
pretty much left up to the pilot to decide what maneuver is necessary
for the landing. My interpretation is that as long as the maneuver is
part of a planned landing (or landing maneuver - which allows go-
arounds and missed approaches), If I want to check out the runway
condition and wind, I can fly down the runway as low as I want. In a
glider, I obviously have to be fast to make it safe (just like a power
plane has to have the fuel to complete a missed approach).

Obviously, overflying people, bldgs, vehicles while low is in
violation - and stupid - which is why I now only do contest finishes
along the runway if I'm going to be low.

But if you are over a runway at 50 ft, there is no regulatory
difference between 50 knots and 150 knots.

Let's not overreact about what happened in England. In the US, even
if the accident hadn't happened, the pilot would have been penalized
for a low finish (below 50'). We have the control in place - the
Brits should copy our rule!

You can go to any FAA towered airport and if it's not too busy,
request and do a low pass in a powered plane - and go as low as you
want and as fast as you want (within the airspeed limits below
10,000') and no-one will complain. As long as it's down the runway.

Well, some old jealous crochety geezers will, of course...

Kirk
66

[John Sinclair]

Kevin wrote................
>Most US contest organizers know to apply for an FAA
>waiver on this
>issue. My understanding is that they are not that
>hard to obtain.

Yes sir, Mr PSDO, we're having one of them gilder contests
and we'd like to fly closer than 500 feet to folks
and things. Could we get a waiver for that? I understand
you give them all the time.
Also, after the guys get through flying low and fast
near folks, they do this maneuver not necessary for
normal flight, could we be gettin' a waiver for that
too?
Thank Youuu,
JJ

[John Sinclair]

Kirt wrote...........
>find the definition of a landing pattern. You will
>find that it's
>pretty much left up to the pilot to decide what maneuver
>is necessary
>for the landing.

Well, lets see, now. Your at 145 knots and 50 feet
and you say you in your landing pattern....................
1. Haver you slowed to landing speed?
2. Have you put the gear down?
3. Have you put the flaps down?
4. Have you made a landing radio call?
5. Are you ready to explain your actions to the Federalies
if / when you run into someone / something?,

I'm not, so I don't do it and I won't run a contest
that allows it or enter a contest that does.
Crotchitchy old JJ

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 1:16 pm, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> Kevin wrote................
> >Most US contest organizers know to apply for an FAA
> >waiver on this
> >issue. My understanding is that they are not that
> >hard to obtain.
>
> Yes sir, Mr PSDO, we're having one of them gilder contests
> and we'd like to fly closer than 500 feet to folks
> and things. Could we get a waiver for that? I understand
> you give them all the time.
> Also, after the guys get through flying low and fast
> near folks, they do this maneuver not necessary for
> normal flight, could we be gettin' a waiver for that
> too?
> Thank Youuu,
> JJ

The FAA can issue waivers for all sorts of things. Give them a call
and ask them, if you don't believe me.

2c

[Stewart Kissel]

The logic here still escapes me....soaring contest
organizers are to ask the FAA for a waiver...so that
an activity that the vast majority of pilots do not
choose to do, and consider unsafe...will be permitted?
Particularly in light of GPS scoring. I would love
to be the fly on the wall when one of our 'wormburner'
contingent comes up with his/her rationale to present
to the FAA.

As another data-point on this discussion....how does
the insurance company view the fatality in Great Britian?,
and for that matter...how would insurance cover a low-pass
accident that busted FAR's? I pay my premiums to cover
accidents that occured within pilots flying by FAR,
not for cowboys.



At 19:00 11 February 2007,
wrote:
>On Feb 11, 1:16 pm, John Sinclair
> wrote:
>> Kevin wrote................
>> >Most US contest organizers know to apply for an FAA
>> >waiver on this
>> >issue. My understanding is that they are not that
>> >hard to obtain.
>>
>> Yes sir, Mr PSDO, we're having one of them gilder
>>contests
>> and we'd like to fly closer than 500 feet to folks
>> and things. Could we get a waiver for that? I understand
>> you give them all the time.
>> Also, after the guys get through flying low and fast
>> near folks, they do this maneuver not necessary for
>> normal flight, could we be gettin' a waiver for that
>> too?
>> Thank Youuu,
>> JJ
>
>The FAA can issue waivers for all sorts of things.
> Give them a call
>and ask them, if you don't believe me.
>
>2c
>
>

[Stewart Kissel]

The logic here still escapes me....soaring contest
organizers are to ask the FAA for a waiver...so that
an activity that the vast majority of pilots do not
choose to do, and consider unsafe...will be permitted?
Particularly in light of GPS scoring. I would love
to be the fly on the wall when one of our 'wormburner'
contingent comes up with his/her rationale to present
to the FAA.

As another data-point on this discussion....how does
the insurance company view the fatality in Great Britian?,
and for that matter...how would insurance cover a low-pass
accident that busted FAR's? I pay my premiums to cover
accidents that occured within pilots flying by FAR,
not for cowboys.



At 19:00 11 February 2007,
wrote:
>On Feb 11, 1:16 pm, John Sinclair
> wrote:
>> Kevin wrote................
>> >Most US contest organizers know to apply for an FAA
>> >waiver on this
>> >issue. My understanding is that they are not that
>> >hard to obtain.
>>
>> Yes sir, Mr PSDO, we're having one of them gilder
>>contests
>> and we'd like to fly closer than 500 feet to folks
>> and things. Could we get a waiver for that? I understand
>> you give them all the time.
>> Also, after the guys get through flying low and fast
>> near folks, they do this maneuver not necessary for
>> normal flight, could we be gettin' a waiver for that
>> too?
>> Thank Youuu,
>> JJ
>
>The FAA can issue waivers for all sorts of things.
> Give them a call
>and ask them, if you don't believe me.
>
>2c
>
>

[Stefan]

Stewart Kissel schrieb:
> The logic here still escapes me....soaring contest
> organizers are to ask the FAA for a waiver...so that
> an activity that the vast majority of pilots do not
> choose to do, and consider unsafe...will be permitted?

Ever seen an airshow?

[jcarlyle]

Yeah, I remember back in 1988 seeing on TV the airshow at Ramstein
where the Italian aerobatic team had a mid-air. It injured over 400
people and killed 70. Airshow regulations were changed to better
protect the audience.

That's the point here - learn from this tragic accident, recognize
there was a problem with the "show" as it was being conducted, and
change things so people don't get hurt or killed in the future.

-John

On Feb 11, 2:16 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> Ever seen an airshow?

[Don Johnstone]

At 19:18 11 February 2007, Stefan wrote:
>Stewart Kissel schrieb:
>> The logic here still escapes me....soaring contest
>> organizers are to ask the FAA for a waiver...so that
>> an activity that the vast majority of pilots do not
>> choose to do, and consider unsafe...will be permitted?
>
>Ever seen an airshow?
>
Many, and the proffesional well trained, checked and
authorised pilots who fly in them. The rules for a
display pilot, in the UK at least require a standard
of airmanship that is verifiable. Every display pilot
has a minimum level to which he is cleared, only the
best of the best get cleared to the lowest level.

[Stewart Kissel]

At 19:18 11 February 2007, Stefan wrote:
>Stewart Kissel schrieb:
>> The logic here still escapes me....soaring contest
>> organizers are to ask the FAA for a waiver...so that
>> an activity that the vast majority of pilots do not
>> choose to do, and consider unsafe...will be permitted?
>
>Ever seen an airshow?


OH, you mean where pilots are trained and pass tests
before being allowed to make aerobatic manuevers.
Where pilots may not be fatigued and dehydrated from
tough 5 hour cross country flight. Where workers on
the field delineate safe areas for the public to stand.
Where airplanes are sequenced into airspace, rather
then screaming in on final glider from all directions?

Where airshow pilots *may* participate in regular physical
fitness programs to improve their stamina? Where the
purpose of the airshow is aerobatic manuevers, not
cross country competition with the need for high-g
pull up at the end.

Yes, I have seen several of these. Are you stating
we should categorize cross country soaring competitions
as 'air shows'?

Low passes look and sound cool...in an uncontrolled
environment conducted by fatigued pilots, who are also
going to immediately enter into the most dangerous
part of the flight(landing)...I don't see your analogy
fitting.

Maybe we should have the airshow pilots fly arond in
the sun for 5 hours before starting their routines?

Do glider aerobatic competitions start by first fatiguing
the pilots?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 2:40�pm, Stewart Kissel
> wrote:
> At 19:18 11 February 2007, Stefan wrote:
>
> >Stewart Kissel schrieb:
> >> The logic here still escapes me....soaring contest
> >> organizers are to ask the FAA for a waiver...so that
> >> an activity that the vast majority of pilots do not
> >> choose to do, and consider unsafe...will be permitted?
>
> >Ever seen an airshow?
>
> OH, you mean where pilots are trained and pass tests
> before being allowed to make aerobatic manuevers.
> *Where pilots may not be fatigued and dehydrated from
> tough 5 hour cross country flight. *Where workers on
> the field delineate safe areas for the public to stand.
> *Where airplanes are sequenced into airspace, rather
> then screaming in on final glider from all directions?
>
> Where airshow pilots *may* participate in regular physical
> fitness programs to improve their stamina? *Where the
> purpose of the airshow is aerobatic manuevers, not
> cross country competition with the need for high-g
> pull up at the end.
>
> Yes, I have seen several of these. *Are you stating
> we should categorize cross country soaring competitions
> as 'air shows'?
>
> Low passes look and sound cool...in an uncontrolled
> environment conducted by fatigued pilots, who are also
> going to immediately enter into the most dangerous
> part of the flight(landing)...I don't see your analogy
> fitting.
>
> Maybe we should have the airshow pilots fly arond in
> the sun for 5 hours before starting their routines?
>
> Do glider aerobatic competitions start by first fatiguing
> the pilots?
Respectfully:
Why don't you guys put pink skirts around your glider and have an old
lady contest. You're just killing the fun. You all preach a good line
with perhaps 1000' setback for launches next, bubble wrap to follow so
that everyone's tush don't get scratch. After the contest you'll drive
with your girlie glider down the highway at 80 mph with total
disregard for the mother and her twins coming the other way.
Those who want guarantees, stay home and wait, for death will arrive.
More NASCAR fans die every year sitting in the stands than all the
world combined from "Maximum Performance Finishes", EVER!!
As tragic as the accident in UK was, the facts and statistics do not
support a change in finish height. Ya, I know, say that to the widow,
but one "specific type" accident over a defined time line determines
trends, which in this case , there is none. The vast majority feel
that MPFs are an important part of competition racing and all should
maintain a watch to assure that they're done by everyone, safely.
R

[Stewart Kissel]

At 00:06 12 February 2007, wrote:

>Respectfully:
>Why don't you guys put pink skirts around your glider
>and have an old
>lady contest. You're just killing the fun.

Aha, the 'real men use contest finishes' argument.
I was waiting for that one. Why not break out the
calipers and measuring tape before hand so a certain
appendage can be accurately measured for every pilot?



>Those who want guarantees, stay home and wait, for
>death will arrive.
>More NASCAR fans die every year sitting in the stands
>than all the
>world combined from 'Maximum Performance Finishes',
>EVER!!

OK, what is the point there?....sailplane racing involves
less then 5% of a very small group to start with.
No doubt more people die from bee stings then low finishes
also. A fatality now and again because of low finishes
is acceptable because....why?

>As tragic as the accident in UK was, the facts and
>statistics do not
>support a change in finish height.
Meaning if the glider was 50' higher, the same fatality
would have occured?

The vast majority feel
>that MPFs are an important part of competition racing
>and all should
>maintain a watch to assure that they're done by everyone,
>safely.

The vast majority of whom? The 5% who race? What
about the vast majority of Cessna 172 pilots who would
like to buzz their home towns under 50'? Or the vast
majority of skiers who would like to ski on crowded
groomed runs at 80mph?

Your argument holds the logic of....we don't care if
someone gets killed...because this is how we want to
operate. I still did not see your response to how
insurance companies will pay out when pilots knowingly
bust FAR's...or is that not relevant to your need to
be flying low?
>R
>

Sailplane racing does not get a pass on safety issues
from the rest of the sport....are low passes okay for
training new students? Are low passes okay when giving
rides? Are low passes okay when completing long tasks?
How about low inverted passes?

[Stewart Kissel]

Ya, I know, say that to the widow,
>but one 'specific type' accident over a defined time
>line determines
>trends, which in this case , there is none.


So the space shuttle only having problems with O-rings
on one occasion is not a trend? First you guys use
the argument that these are inherily safe, then when
something like this happens....the agument becomes
it is the fault of the spectator or pilot.

Flying 5' above the ground outside of an airport is
stupid, true or false?

[[email protected]]

Would this tragic fatality have occured if using the US contest finish
line rules? No. Stop pooping on the US rules. The straight in finish
to landing (popular in World level and Grand Prix events) promotes
very low (grass top) finishes. Our rules prohibit that type of
flying. The Finish line is only used in National events, Regionals
should be using the Finish Cylinder. The finish line has a bottom of
50' and an unlimited top, is 3300' in length and is positioned well
away from people, vessels, vehicels and structures. When contest
organizers properly place the finish line it is perfectly legal to fly
down to 50' without any waiver from the FAA. If it is deemed that the
finish line is over an area other than "sparsely populated", the
bottom of the finish line should be placed at 500' or 1000' AGL as
appropriate, or the finish cylinder should be used in its place. If
Charlie and his van are the only congestion near the finish line, then
he should be avoided by at least 500' slant range, (no requirement to
be 500' AGL). There is no requirement to finish at 50', if 500' or
above is more your style, then save your Depends from the soiling and
finish high.

[Brian Glick]

Everytime this topic comes up I am more amused. JJ says he will not enter a
contest that allows it, that is his right, and I applaud him. Every pilot
knows what he is comfortable with, and where his limits lie. Some people
should use those limits better, and all would be fine. As mentioned earlier,
NOTHING says you MUST finish at 50 feet and 140knots, so if you want to
whine about this subject, just finish high and let everyone else alone. Very
simple, and you still get no rude looks accross the table at the next glider
meet! Trust me, I have started a few subjects that it has happened to me,
right Henry!!!

Brian Glick

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> Ya, I know, say that to the widow,
>>but one 'specific type' accident over a defined time
>>line determines
>>trends, which in this case , there is none.
>
>
> So the space shuttle only having problems with O-rings
> on one occasion is not a trend? First you guys use
> the argument that these are inherily safe, then when
> something like this happens....the agument becomes
> it is the fault of the spectator or pilot.
>
> Flying 5' above the ground outside of an airport is
> stupid, true or false?
>
>
>

[John Sinclair]

R wrote...........

>but one 'specific type' accident over a defined time
>line determines
>trends, which in this case , there is none.

The US has had 10 finish gate accidents with 2 fatalities,
is that enough for a trend?


The vast majority feel
>that MPFs are an important part of competition racing
>and all should
>maintain a watch to assure that they're done by everyone,
>safely.
>R

My point in all of this is; SSA sanctioned rules violate
FAR 91.119 and we are in a vulnerable position if we
have a UK type accident.

Kirk believes the AIM allows him to fly any pattern
he wishes. I'd like to listen in as he explains his
50 foot pattern to the Federallies. Let's see now,
you started your pattern at 50 feet, pulled up to a
tear-drop, down-wind and then landed the other way?
When they get through shaking their heads, they'll
read him the FAR about Minimum Safe Altitude, then
the FAR about Reckless Flying, then they'll lift his
ticket and well have one less cowboy ruining this sport
for the rest of us.
JJ

[kirk.stant]

> My point in all of this is; SSA sanctioned rules violate
> FAR 91.119 and we are in a vulnerable position if we
> have a UK type accident.

No they don't. Like anything else in life, common sense is required.
You have to place the finish line so that you either finish along a
runway, or away from people and property.
>
> Kirk believes the AIM allows him to fly any pattern
> he wishes. I'd like to listen in as he explains his
> 50 foot pattern to the Federallies. Let's see now,
> you started your pattern at 50 feet, pulled up to a
> tear-drop, down-wind and then landed the other way?
> When they get through shaking their heads, they'll
> read him the FAR about Minimum Safe Altitude, then
> the FAR about Reckless Flying, then they'll lift his
> ticket and well have one less cowboy ruining this sport
> for the rest of us.
> JJ

Again, your interpretation vs mine. I've already talked to some FAA
guys about it, and they agree with me. I'm sure you can find some
other ones who would violate me on the spot - in fact I know one here
in IL. Funny though, a circling approach at minimums is OK, though,
to these same guys. Guess it depends on what you are trained to do,
and who pays you salary.

There is a difference between hotdogging in the pattern and flying a
thought-out contest finish. And the FARs and AIM provide ample
guidance on what you can - and cannot - do in the pattern. I comply
with the regulations. You do not want to see it that way, so be it.
But it seems to me that I'm not the cowboy in this rodeo trying to
ruin this sport!

Unfortunately, it's becoming a moot point since the creeping
mediocrity of pilot-selected tasks and 500'/1 mile finishes after a 2
hour task seems to be taking over the sport. I guess my definition of
a "contest" is different from some others out there.

And a happy monday to you, too!

Kirk
66

[Don Johnstone]

Over many years comp finishes in the UK breached the
low flying rules, everyone knew it, some of us said
so publicly and were derided for it. Now we have had
the accident and from now on the BGA rules will have
to be approved by the CAA. If you think that the FAA
would act any differently from the CAA then carry on,
if you don't, do something about it now before you
get something imposed on you that no-one likes.

At 16:48 12 February 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>> My point in all of this is; SSA sanctioned rules violate
>> FAR 91.119 and we are in a vulnerable position if
>>we
>> have a UK type accident.
>
>No they don't. Like anything else in life, common
>sense is required.
>You have to place the finish line so that you either
>finish along a
>runway, or away from people and property.
>>
>> Kirk believes the AIM allows him to fly any pattern
>> he wishes. I'd like to listen in as he explains his
>> 50 foot pattern to the Federallies. Let's see now,
>> you started your pattern at 50 feet, pulled up to
>>a
>> tear-drop, down-wind and then landed the other way?
>> When they get through shaking their heads, they'll
>> read him the FAR about Minimum Safe Altitude, then
>> the FAR about Reckless Flying, then they'll lift his
>> ticket and well have one less cowboy ruining this
>>sport
>> for the rest of us.
>> JJ
>
>Again, your interpretation vs mine. I've already talked
>to some FAA
>guys about it, and they agree with me. I'm sure you
>can find some
>other ones who would violate me on the spot - in fact
>I know one here
>in IL. Funny though, a circling approach at minimums
>is OK, though,
>to these same guys. Guess it depends on what you are
>trained to do,
>and who pays you salary.
>
>There is a difference between hotdogging in the pattern
>and flying a
>thought-out contest finish. And the FARs and AIM provide
>ample
>guidance on what you can - and cannot - do in the pattern.
>I comply
>with the regulations. You do not want to see it that
>way, so be it.
>But it seems to me that I'm not the cowboy in this
>rodeo trying to
>ruin this sport!
>
>Unfortunately, it's becoming a moot point since the
>creeping
>mediocrity of pilot-selected tasks and 500'/1 mile
>finishes after a 2
>hour task seems to be taking over the sport. I guess
>my definition of
>a 'contest' is different from some others out there.
>
>And a happy monday to you, too!
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

Over many years comp finishes in the UK breached the
low flying rules, everyone knew it, some of us said
so publicly and were derided for it. Now we have had
the accident and from now on the BGA rules will have
to be approved by the CAA. If you think that the FAA
would act any differently from the CAA then carry on,
if you don't, do something about it now before you
get something imposed on you that no-one likes.

At 16:48 12 February 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>> My point in all of this is; SSA sanctioned rules violate
>> FAR 91.119 and we are in a vulnerable position if
>>we
>> have a UK type accident.
>
>No they don't. Like anything else in life, common
>sense is required.
>You have to place the finish line so that you either
>finish along a
>runway, or away from people and property.
>>
>> Kirk believes the AIM allows him to fly any pattern
>> he wishes. I'd like to listen in as he explains his
>> 50 foot pattern to the Federallies. Let's see now,
>> you started your pattern at 50 feet, pulled up to
>>a
>> tear-drop, down-wind and then landed the other way?
>> When they get through shaking their heads, they'll
>> read him the FAR about Minimum Safe Altitude, then
>> the FAR about Reckless Flying, then they'll lift his
>> ticket and well have one less cowboy ruining this
>>sport
>> for the rest of us.
>> JJ
>
>Again, your interpretation vs mine. I've already talked
>to some FAA
>guys about it, and they agree with me. I'm sure you
>can find some
>other ones who would violate me on the spot - in fact
>I know one here
>in IL. Funny though, a circling approach at minimums
>is OK, though,
>to these same guys. Guess it depends on what you are
>trained to do,
>and who pays you salary.
>
>There is a difference between hotdogging in the pattern
>and flying a
>thought-out contest finish. And the FARs and AIM provide
>ample
>guidance on what you can - and cannot - do in the pattern.
>I comply
>with the regulations. You do not want to see it that
>way, so be it.
>But it seems to me that I'm not the cowboy in this
>rodeo trying to
>ruin this sport!
>
>Unfortunately, it's becoming a moot point since the
>creeping
>mediocrity of pilot-selected tasks and 500'/1 mile
>finishes after a 2
>hour task seems to be taking over the sport. I guess
>my definition of
>a 'contest' is different from some others out there.
>
>And a happy monday to you, too!
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>
>
>

[Dan G]

What's really bugging me is that according to the law (at least in the
UK) a glider "shall not fly closer to any person, vessel, vehicle or
structure than 500 feet, except with permission in writing from the
Authority... [and for] normal take-off and landing". As noted in the
AAIB report for the HusBos accident these gliders where flying well
within that margin, for example clearing telegraph wires by 6-9', the
15' from people on the lane 350m outside the airfield boundary, and
from the map in the report the ground tracks were within 300' of farm
buildings. Clearly these gliders were not flying "normal landings".

So - and these are honest questions - surely these pilots, and others
doing the same thing at other comps, were all breaking the law? Why
has this ever been tolerated?


Dan

[[email protected]]

Kirk,

Didn't Bob Hoover get his license pulled because some of the
federalies didn't like his style of flying? I think he got his
license back, but not without an act of God.

(I've been flying gliders since 1981 and I wonder if Mr. Hoover has
more time flying his Shrike and other airplanes in the "engine off"
mode than I have logged in gliders...)

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[kirk.stant]

On Feb 12, 11:34 am, "
> wrote:
> Kirk,
>
> Didn't Bob Hoover get his license pulled because some of the
> federalies didn't like his style of flying? I think he got his
> license back, but not without an act of God.
>
> (I've been flying gliders since 1981 and I wonder if Mr. Hoover has
> more time flying his Shrike and other airplanes in the "engine off"
> mode than I have logged in gliders...)
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Ray, I think it had more to do with his age.

Kirk

[rustynuts]

John Sinclair wrote:
> FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
> no person may operate an aircraft.................................
> ....
> (c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle or structure.
>
> In light of the above regulation, would someone please
> tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
> finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
> person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).
>
> Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
> JJ
JJ, why don't you quit your whining. Do you remember this post
below. I've only flown a few contests
and every one of them the finish was made outside of the a/p boundry
finish no lower than
50' and not over people or property.

You know what, Chris? I think your right. I too will
post no more on ras. Both sides have beat this Finish
Gate vs. Finish Cylinder to death and nobody's going
to change their mind on anything. I for one will not
enter a contest that employs the Finish Gate, but that's
my personal decision. The Rules Committee, Ex-Com and
Directors have the facts and our opinions. I leave
this in their capable hands.

To the Brits, let me say; I apologize for using their
tragic accident to further my personal belief that
low altitude finishes are dangerous.

JJ Sinclair

[aviationnut]

As I understand the FAR's we
are not allowed to fly over people below 500 feet unless we are in
the
act of landing. When we are driving in on the 50-foot gate, we are
not
in the act of landing,...

If we were to move the line, say 500 feet
away from the people, we would end up with a low and slow finisher
landing in the sage brush.

I was driving in hard toward the 50 foot
finish line when a pilot from the other class called a rolling
finish,
coming from the opposite direction. We didn't even come close, but
let's assume for the sake of discussion that we did run into each
other. One pilot is below 500 feet and in the act of landing. The
other
pilot is below 500 feet and not in the act of landing.

Quoted from JJ's post on RAS on March 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't remember a site where I wasn't below 500 feet over people,
places or
things as I made my dive through the finish line. Even at Hobbs,
which
has got to be the most wide open place in the world, I was close to
the
limit as I crossed the highway, finishing from the east, then I flew
over the golf course and over the tie-downs, before hitting the line
at
50 feet.

quoted from JJ's post on March 18, 2005

Let's see, you flew over the tiedowns legally at 500 feet and then
lost 450 feet in less than 500 feet horizontal distance? Just a
little hard to believe. Maybe you broke the regs here too.


I flew the 2nd Sport Class Nationals at Hobbs in 1985? and landed out
every day
except the last. At the end, all I wanted to hear was, "Good finish,
JJ, good
contest, John", from Charlie and I heard it. I do miss the old finish
gate and
Charlie telling all finishers that. I wonder if Charlie Light would
consider
doing that again?

Quoted from JJ's post from August 29, 2002

Which way do you want it, really? There are more quotes from out
there from you JJ. All posted here with all due respect, of course.

Best regards


On Feb 11, 9:26 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
> no person may operate an aircraft.................................
> ....
> (c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle or structure.
>
> In light of the above regulation, would someone please
> tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
> finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
> person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).
>
> Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
> JJ

[John Sinclair]

>JJ, why don't you quit your whining.

Good question Rustynuts, why don't I quit whining about
the finish line?

1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the finish
line at Cal City.

2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but saw
what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.

3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
his actions influenced others to take unnecessary risks.

4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
forever altered.

Don't get me wrong, I love to do low finishes and have
done hundreds of them over the past 30 years. For a
long time that was the only way to finish the race.
Then came GPS and suddenly we had a better and safer
alternative. Most of us went to the finish cylinder,
but some kept on using the finish line because they
liked doing it. I believe it violates FAR 91.119 and
I know it involves muck more risk for no good reason
other than, It's fun to do.
I believe most competition pilots know how to do a
low finish safely and isn't it a sight to behold. A
fast ship, right on the deck, streaming water, headed
for the finish line. Problem is, we set an example
for all others to follow, instructors show their students,
ride pilots show their passengers. Hey, watch this,
look what I can do!

Dont worry Rustynuts, our society doesn't have a very
good record in dealing with safety issues. Right now
we are busy ignoring the need for transponders in certain
areas. I'll shut up and it'll be business as usual
until we have another needless fatality at the finish
line.

And so it goes,
JJ

[Jack[_1_]]

John Sinclair wrote:

> 1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the finish
> line at Cal City.

Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please.


> 2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
> Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but saw
> what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.

From this short description it sounds more like a Darwin award
situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima
detonation, decides to build a small explosive device of his own.
Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if he uses the
appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond the age of
twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more appropriately.
Some do, some don't. We move on.


> 3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
> didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
> his actions influenced others to take unnecessary risks.

I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand the risk.
There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also quite confident
that at least some pilots were accommodating him in order to become
the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to do so is
undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That the photographer
would not have understood this gives him too little credit, and
ignores his career achievements in the process.


> 4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
> forever altered.

I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to one form of
aviation or another, and there have been so many. That doesn't
change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they would choose
again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the risks we take. We
who are left have the great advantage of learning from their
mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful to learn the
wrong lessons as to ignore their passing.

The responsibility for this most recent fatality must lie with the
organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all three. But we err
if we believe that our task is to determine degree of fault or
proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection between
desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever we have an
opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems there are so many
ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only permutations
of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many rules we
promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will leak through
whenever we provide an avenue.

The organic punishment to each of the three entities concerned in
the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden to the wider
community through restrictions to flight only compounds the tragedy.
The answer is education, and training, and some pride to be taken in
what we can do, rather than in so much that we may not.


Jack

[John Sinclair]

Nice little chat about how things should be, Jack.
Now lets talk about how things are. Lets get right
down where the rubber meets the road. I'm involved
with running a national contest, next year and I need
to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?
Remember that I live in sue-happy California where
they'll sue you because the coffee you were served
was too hot! Who's liable if we should have a finish
line accident? The pilot because he did what we told
him to do? How about the SSA who continued to sanction
a procedure that violates FAR's. Next, my club.........good
luck, they haven't got a dime, but then they'll come
after me. I haven't got much, but it took me 72 years
to collect it and I'd kind'a like to keep what I got.

So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next
year?
JJ



At 03:36 14 February 2007, Jack wrote:
>John Sinclair wrote:
>
>> 1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the
>>finish
>> line at Cal City.
>
>Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please.
>
>
>> 2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
>> Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but
>>saw
>> what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.
>
> From this short description it sounds more like a
>Darwin award
>situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima
>detonation, decides to build a small explosive device
>of his own.
>Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if
>he uses the
>appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond
>the age of
>twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more
>appropriately.
>Some do, some don't. We move on.
>
>
>> 3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
>> didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
>> his actions influenced others to take unnecessary
>>risks.
>
>I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand
>the risk.
>There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also
>quite confident
>that at least some pilots were accommodating him in
>order to become
>the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to
>do so is
>undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That
>the photographer
>would not have understood this gives him too little
>credit, and
>ignores his career achievements in the process.
>
>
>> 4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
>> forever altered.
>
>I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to
>one form of
>aviation or another, and there have been so many. That
>doesn't
>change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they
>would choose
>again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the
>risks we take. We
>who are left have the great advantage of learning from
>their
>mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful
>to learn the
>wrong lessons as to ignore their passing.
>
>The responsibility for this most recent fatality must
>lie with the
>organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all
>three. But we err
>if we believe that our task is to determine degree
>of fault or
>proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection
>between
>desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever
>we have an
>opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems
>there are so many
>ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only
>permutations
>of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many
>rules we
>promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will
>leak through
>whenever we provide an avenue.
>
>The organic punishment to each of the three entities
>concerned in
>the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden
>to the wider
>community through restrictions to flight only compounds
>the tragedy.
>The answer is education, and training, and some pride
>to be taken in
>what we can do, rather than in so much that we may
>not.
>
>
>Jack
>

[5Z]

On Feb 15, 7:00 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
> one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
> and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
> which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?

The finish line does not force the pilot to violate FARs, and the
cylinder also allows pilots to violate FARs.

Using the finish line, a pilot must cross no lower than 50' (1000' is
allowed, as is 5000') and within the lateral confines of the gate.

Using the cylinder, the pilot may choose to cross it at 500' and
redline, then dive at the airport and make a pass down the runway at
50'....

So bottom line, there is nothing in the rules that REQUIRES the
organizers or pilots to do anything stupid. But there is plenty of
freedom available for the organizers to set up local field rules. So
set some up! IIRC, you are free to increase the minimum height of the
finish line. There's noting in the rules to prohibit you adding some
limits such as described in another thread about new BGA rules. Just
be sure all pilots are aware of these in a clear an unambiguous way.

For example, at Hobbs, we were to avoid low patterns above the prison
at the far end of the field.

-Tom
Who likes to check for obstructions on the runway up close on the
first approach, then pull up for a normal pattern :)

[kirk.stant]

> So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next
> year?
> JJ

Sounds like you answered your own question, JJ - by all means use a
500' at one mile finish - it's one of your options, and a perfectly
good one.

Now let's see - I'm finishing from the direction opposite the pattern
side, so have to cross the field midfield to enter downwind. I fly a
perfect final glide after a tough day with 2 knot thermals, and nail
my MC 2 final glide to cross the finish at 501 ft and 68 knots. The
crowd roars! Then I tiptoe across the crowd, parked cars, campers,
runways, parked gliders, derigging crews, and assorted dogs and cats
and turn downwind at 300 ft or so, at the approved FAA downwind
location.

Hmm, I just violated the FAR, since I wasn't in the landing pattern,
and was below 500' AGL most of the time, over people and their stuff!

But I won't tell anyone...

Seriously, JJ, what site are you looking at? Wouldn't that make a
difference in what the safest finish and landing pattern would be?

Kirk
66

[Tuno]

66, didn't someone have an incident similar to what you suggest at
Hobbs a year or two ago? Iirc he had to pull up at the edge of the
cylinder to make the minimum finish height, stalled his glider, and
nearly bought the ranch ...

[01-- Zero One]

Same thing has happened at at least one other US contest that I know
of... Pilot managed to walk away from it.



Larry

"zero one"





"Tuno" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> 66, didn't someone have an incident similar to what you suggest at
> Hobbs a year or two ago? Iirc he had to pull up at the edge of the
> cylinder to make the minimum finish height, stalled his glider, and
> nearly bought the ranch ...

[[email protected]]

I don't know, sounds like there are some contest pilots out there that
need to go into remedial training on energy management and safe
pattern use. If someone "runs out" of energy getting back to the
finish line haven't they violated all kinds of FAR's! If any of my
instructors (and the glider "Gods") in our club saw you enter the
pattern with a minimum energy issue they might just have a little chat
with you.

So folks, sounds to me like you are describing bad airmanship problems
and not a rule issue. If the finish is at 500' you should have no
problem with a safe pattern entry, no matter what! What do these folks
do when they get low on course? A wingover into the ground? If you
have an energy management problem then you shouldn't be flying!

JMHO and I just increased my "Fire" insurance so flame away!

Bob


01-- Zero One wrote:
> Same thing has happened at at least one other US contest that I know
> of... Pilot managed to walk away from it.
>
> Larry
>
> "zero one"
>
> "Tuno" > wrote in message
> oups.com:
>
> > 66, didn't someone have an incident similar to what you suggest at
> > Hobbs a year or two ago? Iirc he had to pull up at the edge of the
> > cylinder to make the minimum finish height, stalled his glider, and
> > nearly bought the ranch ...
>
>
-4FFC-B848-E246E3868A98--

[BB]

There have been two accidents that I know of involving pilots with low
energy at a 500 foot finish. One reportedly tried to thermal up to
the finish height with partial water on board, while in gliding range
of the airport.

The answer is simple: if you're not going to make a 500 foot finish,
you have lots of energy for a rolling finish. Put the nose down, aim
for the end of the runway. RIsking anything to avoid the 2-3 minute
penalty for rolling finishes really is stupid. The sooner you commit
to the rolling finish, the faster you will get there, so it's even in
your racing interest to commit early.

I'm usually on the side of writing rules that avoid the temptation for
risky behavior, but this is an exception. The cost in points of a
rolling finish is so small that a well-prepared pilot really has no
excuse for screwing this one up. It's not like the awful decisions we
face when we are right on MacCready zero to make it over the last
stand of trees to the airport, where 600 points lie waiting.

Some more detailed advice on how to safely fly contest finishes under
US rules: (From a recent Soaring "contest corner")

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/contest_finishes.mht

John Cochrane

[Bruce Greef]

5Z wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:00 am, John Sinclair
> > wrote:
>
>>to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
>>one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
>>and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
>>which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?
>
>
> The finish line does not force the pilot to violate FARs, and the
> cylinder also allows pilots to violate FARs.
>
> Using the finish line, a pilot must cross no lower than 50' (1000' is
> allowed, as is 5000') and within the lateral confines of the gate.
>
> Using the cylinder, the pilot may choose to cross it at 500' and
> redline, then dive at the airport and make a pass down the runway at
> 50'....
>
> So bottom line, there is nothing in the rules that REQUIRES the
> organizers or pilots to do anything stupid. But there is plenty of
> freedom available for the organizers to set up local field rules. So
> set some up! IIRC, you are free to increase the minimum height of the
> finish line. There's noting in the rules to prohibit you adding some
> limits such as described in another thread about new BGA rules. Just
> be sure all pilots are aware of these in a clear an unambiguous way.
>
> For example, at Hobbs, we were to avoid low patterns above the prison
> at the far end of the field.
>
> -Tom
> Who likes to check for obstructions on the runway up close on the
> first approach, then pull up for a normal pattern :)
>
Minimum safe attitude is what's needed.

[Nyal Williams]

Let's see; I think I've figured out how to win a contest,
though I've never flown one.

Bring along an FAA safety officer to observe and persuade
him to violate everyone who makes a low pass and to
collect their pilot's certificate for 90 days. Be
sure I stay high and dry and then fly the rest of the
contest in comparative ease in the absence of the hot
shots.

[Written in the aftermath of a blizzard, where I'm
holed up]


At 18:48 16 February 2007, Bruce Greef wrote:
>5Z wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 7:00 am, John Sinclair
>> wrote:
>>
>>>to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
>>>one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
>>>and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
>>>which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?
>>
>>
>> The finish line does not force the pilot to violate
>>FARs, and the
>> cylinder also allows pilots to violate FARs.
>>
>> Using the finish line, a pilot must cross no lower
>>than 50' (1000' is
>> allowed, as is 5000') and within the lateral confines
>>of the gate.
>>
>> Using the cylinder, the pilot may choose to cross
>>it at 500' and
>> redline, then dive at the airport and make a pass
>>down the runway at
>> 50'....
>>
>> So bottom line, there is nothing in the rules that
>>REQUIRES the
>> organizers or pilots to do anything stupid. But there
>>is plenty of
>> freedom available for the organizers to set up local
>>field rules. So
>> set some up! IIRC, you are free to increase the minimum
>>height of the
>> finish line. There's noting in the rules to prohibit
>>you adding some
>> limits such as described in another thread about new
>>BGA rules. Just
>> be sure all pilots are aware of these in a clear an
>>unambiguous way.
>>
>> For example, at Hobbs, we were to avoid low patterns
>>above the prison
>> at the far end of the field.
>>
>> -Tom
>> Who likes to check for obstructions on the runway
>>up close on the
>> first approach, then pull up for a normal pattern
>>:)
>>
>Minimum safe attitude is what's needed.
>

[mart]

In Australia they have found what I think is a very good answer to low finishes. A sort of middle way. You have to have a ticket to do them. That is; you fly with a instructor who teaches you to do them properly and safely.Than you get a ticket and are allowed to do them during contests where they allow them. At the last nationals at Benalla they weren't allowed because the airport is too busy. If a pilot shows unsafe behaviour doing a low finish they can simply take away his license to do them. This is a good deterrent to have safe fun.
I watched to worlds in St Auban where pilots few a circuit. The public was greatly disappointed with those boring landings. The organisation tried to make it exiting but a lot of people just walked away. They come to see exitment. The public at that comp in England were there especially for that exitment.Take that away and they will stay away and gliding dies. Try and do the Aussie middleway with safe exitment and everybody will be happy.

mart

[Jack[_1_]]

John Sinclair wrote:
> Nice little chat about how things should be, Jack.
> Now lets talk about how things are. Lets get right
> down where the rubber meets the road. I'm involved
> with running a national contest, next year and I need
> to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
> one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
> and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
> which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?
> Remember that I live in sue-happy California where
> they'll sue you because the coffee you were served
> was too hot! Who's liable if we should have a finish
> line accident? The pilot because he did what we told
> him to do? How about the SSA who continued to sanction
> a procedure that violates FAR's. Next, my club.........good
> luck, they haven't got a dime, but then they'll come
> after me. I haven't got much, but it took me 72 years
> to collect it and I'd kind'a like to keep what I got.
>
> So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next
> year?


Does the fatal accident rate in recent years, show a major
statistical connection with contest finishes? Is it the 1st,
2nd, or 3rd most frequent context?

Given the amount of misunderstanding in the pilot community
(power and glider) about just what constitutes a legal approach to a
landing at an uncontrolled field, it's obviously a bucket of worms
that the FAA believes is best dealt with after the fact. For them,
91.13 -- "careless and reckless" -- is adequate when attention must
be paid. Some of us obviously would do it the same way if they were
in FAA's shoes.

In the meantime, down there where the rubber meets the runway, each
individual takes responsibility for the things he can control,
whether camera position, glider flight path, or contest rules. If
the sport is to benefit from keeping the low fast finish, then it's
up to the SSA to shore up the worm-burner's acceptability, because
that is a crusade on multiple fronts (legal, venue, pilot
competence, etc.) which is more than any single contest boss can be
expected to take on alone.

Because the solution is bigger than the problem -- like all
things political -- I suppose the odds are on the side of the
nanny-state approach and not with that of the robust individualists
who prefer to let the ignorant/incompetent fall where they may.

Best of luck, JJ. I know you'll do the right thing.


Jack
---------------------------------------

> At 03:36 14 February 2007, Jack wrote:
>> John Sinclair wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the
>>> finish
>>> line at Cal City.
>> Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please.
>>
>>
>>> 2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
>>> Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but
>>> saw
>>> what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.
>> From this short description it sounds more like a
>> Darwin award
>> situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima
>> detonation, decides to build a small explosive device
>> of his own.
>> Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if
>> he uses the
>> appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond
>> the age of
>> twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more
>> appropriately.
>> Some do, some don't. We move on.
>>
>>
>>> 3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
>>> didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
>>> his actions influenced others to take unnecessary
>>> risks.
>> I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand
>> the risk.
>> There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also
>> quite confident
>> that at least some pilots were accommodating him in
>> order to become
>> the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to
>> do so is
>> undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That
>> the photographer
>> would not have understood this gives him too little
>> credit, and
>> ignores his career achievements in the process.
>>
>>
>>> 4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
>>> forever altered.
>> I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to
>> one form of
>> aviation or another, and there have been so many. That
>> doesn't
>> change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they
>> would choose
>> again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the
>> risks we take. We
>> who are left have the great advantage of learning from
>> their
>> mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful
>> to learn the
>> wrong lessons as to ignore their passing.
>>
>> The responsibility for this most recent fatality must
>> lie with the
>> organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all
>> three. But we err
>> if we believe that our task is to determine degree
>> of fault or
>> proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection
>> between
>> desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever
>> we have an
>> opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems
>> there are so many
>> ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only
>> permutations
>> of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many
>> rules we
>> promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will
>> leak through
>> whenever we provide an avenue.
>>
>> The organic punishment to each of the three entities
>> concerned in
>> the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden
>> to the wider
>> community through restrictions to flight only compounds
>> the tragedy.
>> The answer is education, and training, and some pride
>> to be taken in
>> what we can do, rather than in so much that we may
>> not.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
>
>